Beer v. Wine

[Stone]

Most people partake in both of these ubiquitous beverages.  Personally, I'm a greater fan of beer -- I find that the differences in styles, tastes, and textures are far more interesting than the more subtle differences in wines -- at a far cheaper price.  I'm sure you know what reaction I get from my "wine" friends.

But both drinks are firmly embedded in our culture.  There's something about sharing a cold beer that brings people together.  And wine is seen by many as a necessary companion to any good meal.

What are your thoughts on which is more important?  Which has made a better contribution?  And why?

[Ron Johnson]

It isn't even close.  Wine has made the bigger contribution.  I also disagree with your statement that the differences in wine are less interesting because they are so subtle.  I find the differences between an Alsatian riesling and a NZ sauvignon blanc anything but subtle.  

I recognize that making good beer is a craft, but making good wine is an art.  Another important distinction between the two is the importance of the terroir and the grapes themselves.  I have never seen a "single vineyard" beer.  Similarly, I don't believe that hops, which are grown anew each year, are able to communicate the terroir like grapes whose vines may have been producing fruit in that vineyard for more than sixty years from the same vines.

Personally, I am a huge fan of bourbon whiskey and find it to be a very complex and interesting spirit, however, I acknowledge that it is an inferior beverage to wine in terms of complexity and cultural sigificance.

Good topic.  Cheers!

[A Balic]

I love them both!

I would have to agree with Ron about the subtle differences in wine bit , but I do think that beer can be just as dirverse and interesting as wine. For instance:

http://hbd.org/brewery/library/mashtun/belg.html

I'm not sure that you can talk about the relative cultural importance of the two, without context. Nor can you compare wine production methods and beer production methods. Terroir is an over rated concept in wine and how can you apply it to beer production?

[Ron Johnson]

Terroir is far from an overrated concept in wine.  In fact, it is one of the most important concepts.  It is the expression of terroir that is so sorely lacking in New World wines.  Over-extracted, too tannic, highly concentrated fruit bombs may get high scores from Parker and the Wine Spectator, but they will never compare to a grand cru chablis that showcases the chalky terrain in which its grapes were cultivated or a lush Cote Rotie that exemplifies the steeo hillside vineyard from which it was produced.  It is terroir that makes wine so different from other products.

I agree that beer can be an amazingly diverse and interesting product.  I further believe that the Belgian ales are some of the best in the world, but I do not agree that beer encompasses the same complexity and range of flavors and smells that one gets from wine.

[Liza]

I wonder which has the greater cultural influence on culture? Which great artists and writers drank beer, which wine? That would be an interesting barometer!

[tommy]

Quote: from Liza on 11:30 am on Jan. 17, 2002

I wonder which has the greater cultural influence on culture? Which great artists and writers drank beer, which wine? That would be an interesting barometer!

i don't think that particular discussion would be complete without including herion, opiates of all sorts, etc.

[A Balic]

Quote: from ron johnson on 6:55 pm on Jan. 17, 2002

Terroir is far from an overrated concept in wine.  In fact, it is one of the most important concepts.  It is the expression of terroir that is so sorely lacking in New World wines.  Over-extracted, too tannic, highly concentrated fruit bombs may get high scores from Parker and the Wine Spectator, but they will never compare to a grand cru chablis that showcases the chalky terrain in which its grapes were cultivated or a lush Cote Rotie that exemplifies the steep hillside vineyard from which it was produced.  It is terroir that makes wine so different from other products.

I quite agree, terroir is rather important, but it is only one of many important factors contributing to the character of a wine eg. grape variety, cultivation practices, wine making practices etc. You know as well as I do that there are many poor Burgundies being produced from grapes growing in the same row as grapes producing superior wine. Yes, in some cases it is a matter of different terrior, but in other examples it is a matter of the plots belonging to different owners (stupid Napoleonic inheritance laws).

"Never" is a very long time, remember it wasn't so very long ago that Lafite was bended with Hermitage to give it some substance, times change. Yes, Mr Parker seems to have a love of the full blown doesn't he. I am finding it increasingly difficult to drink the bolder examples of New world wine, thank goodness Australia still has plenty "undiscovered" wine, with their own particular expression of terrior.

[Liza]

Good point, Tommy. I guess I was limiting myself to the discussions open to us here (!) but for further reference, check out "Shaman Woman, Mainline Lady", a book by my aunt and uncle about women's writings on the drug experience.

[Stone]

I'm curious about terroir.  As you can tell, my wine knowledge is very limited.  But having recently moved to San Francisco, I've taken a number of trips up to Napa and Sonoma.

But my point -- each consists largely of a long valley with one road running down the middle and wineries popping up every few hundred yards.  My question is this -- how different can a wine be (assuming its the same type of grape) from one vineyard to the next if the vines are grown so close together?  I assume they get the same rainfall, temperature and sunlight?

Also, I'm told that the huge Neibaum-Coppola estate was until recently a famous-name producer (who I can't remember) that churned out mediocre to bad wines.   If the vines are the same, can the wines be better, just because someone else is bottling them?

[Stone]

And in defense of beer -- While the "terrior" of wine may be interesting, I don't know why that leads to the conclusion that wine is an "art" and beer only a "craft."  When I was visiting vineyards in Tuscany and asked about the process, one of the guys said, "well, we have tractors that pick the grapes, a machine that pulls them off the vines and mashes them, and they go into the big casks.  That's about it."  O.k., maybe he was a slacker.  

But the art of crafting a good beer is quite complex and, given the broader range of ingredients (even if sticking to the four ingredient requirement of the German purity laws) I would think more interesting.

Choosing between hop varieties, different ranges of toasted malts, top/bottom fermentation, water-additives, spices, etc., gets very interesting.

And the flavor ranges are, would expect, at least as pronounced as in wines -- from the creamy, chocolately stouts, to the fruity trappist ales, crisp-bitter pale ales and so on.

So, I really don't believe that one is "superior" to the other.

On other hand, what I was trying to get at with the question is culture.  For example, is there a wine equivalent to the German beer-hall, where people gather to drink, sing and dance?  I remember first thinking of the question while reading Frances Mayes's, "Under a Tuscan Sun", and getting to the passage where she shared a cold beer with the day-workers.  They didn't speak the same language, but the sharing the beer was enough.

[A Balic]

Quote: from Dstone001 on 8:09 pm on Jan. 17, 2002

I'm curious about terroir.  As you can tell, my wine knowledge is very limited.  But having recently moved to San Francisco, I've taken a number of trips up to Napa and Sonoma.

But my point -- each consists largely of a long valley with one road running down the middle and wineries popping up every few hundred yards.  My question is this -- how different can a wine be (assuming its the same type of grape) from one vineyard to the next if the vines are grown so close together?  I assume they get the same rainfall, temperature and sunlight?

Also, I'm told that the huge Neibaum-Coppola estate was until recently a famous-name producer (who I can't remember) that churned out mediocre to bad wines.   If the vines are the same, can the wines be better, just because someone else is bottling them?

FWI here is site with some definitions of terroir (not "terrior", as in my last post!):

http://www.wineanorak.com/terroir2.htm

As you can see, the concept is a little nebulous. As Ron indicated the character of the wine is greatly effected by its geography/microclimate. So you can have vines growing next to each that will produce very different wines because there is some local difference, like a change in the slope, which effects the soil drainage and the amount of light the vines get, or a change in the local in the soil from, say chalky to clay soil etc etc. Even if you have identicle grapes, picked at the same time etc you can get very different wines from different wine makers, due to differences in the individuals winemaking skill (alot of differences).

[A Balic]

Quote: from Dstone001 on 8:22 pm on Jan. 17, 2002

And in defense of beer -- While the "terrior" of wine may be interesting, I don't know why that leads to the conclusion that wine is an "art" and beer only a "craft."  When I was visiting vineyards in Tuscany and asked about the process, one of the guys said, "well, we have tractors that pick the grapes, a machine that pulls them off the vines and mashes them, and they go into the big casks.  That's about it."  O.k., maybe he was a slacker.  

But the art of crafting a good beer is quite complex and, given the broader range of ingredients (even if sticking to the four ingredient requirement of the German purity laws) I would think more interesting.

Choosing between hop varieties, different ranges of toasted malts, top/bottom fermentation, water-additives, spices, etc., gets very interesting.

And the flavor ranges are, would expect, at least as pronounced as in wines -- from the creamy, chocolately stouts, to the fruity trappist ales, crisp-bitter pale ales and so on.

So, I really don't believe that one is "superior" to the other.

On other hand, what I was trying to get at with the question is culture.  For example, is there a wine equivalent to the German beer-hall, where people gather to drink, sing and dance?  I remember first thinking of the question while reading Frances Mayes's, "Under a Tuscan Sun", and getting to the passage where she shared a cold beer with the day-workers.  They didn't speak the same language, but the sharing the beer was enough.

Excellent points (until you got to the "Under a Tuscan Sun" bit: a hateful book  :)). An equivalent to a German beer hall? There is a golden land know as "Alsace", populated by germanic types, where there are places called "Vinstub"which is the wine version of a beer hall. They are great fun. The are similar places in Eastern Europe as well. You can do the same "breaking of bread" thing with wine, but it has to be subjected to a process to remove all taint of pretence first.

[Stone]

[A Balic]

Quote: from Dstone001 on 9:58 pm on Jan. 17, 2002

You can do the same "breaking of bread" thing with wine, but it has to be subjected to a process to remove all taint of pretence first.

[Ron Johnson]

Dstone001:  You won't find any expression of terroir in Napa Valley.  Those wines are winemaker manipulated fruit bombs.  Not all, but most.

As for the Niebaum Coppola site, it  made mediocre wines before and it makes mediocre wines today.  No change that I see.

[tommy]

Quote: from ron johnson on 11:43 am on Jan. 18, 2002

Dstone001:  You won't find any expression of terroir in Napa Valley.  Those wines are winemaker manipulated fruit bombs

indeed.  it would seem that the end product is much more a result of the process rather than the grape.  this is not the case in france and other old world wine producing countries, where the grape is the single most important factor.

hundreds of years of wine production gives these areas an advantage of course.  

[Bux]

Which is more important is either a subjective concept, or a silly one. Ditto about better. More has been said and written about wine, and thus it could far more easily claim to be a muse. That and a buck and a half will get in on the subway, or maybe not. Maybe it's illegal to carry alcoholic beverages on the subway.

As for inspiring writing not about itself, as well as painting and music, Tommy has the right idea. Where wine rises to the fore, is it's affiliation with fine food and great meals. Neither the average beer hall denizen or the average wino are a part of this, but at the upper reaches of appreciation I think you'll find greater activity in the wine camp. That wine bars are less boisterous than beer halls should not be seem as a cultural failing. It fact wine's strength may be in that it reaches not only the wien stubbe (sp?) and heurigen (sp?) but the highest reaches of haute cuisine. Beer is not unknown in the latter circles, or unworthy of being there, but it's still an oddity.

On the subject of terroir, I had an interesting comment from a sommelier in NY on an excelent wine from the Languedoc. The sommelier was not a fan. He referred to the wine as "technical." I didn't get it, so I asked. He said it could come from any place. It was the product of a serious and talented winemaker, but it had no local character.

[A Balic]

I have been labouring under a misapprehension, when we were taking about "culture", I took it as meaning ?the beliefs, customs, practices and social behaviour of a particular nation or people?, not about what the upper-middleclasses do in their play time.

Bux, I think that I would rather drink your characterless Languedoc red, rather then an overpriced Claret. I would guess that that your sommelier recognised that use of New world wine making techniques, so he was quite right to reject it on that account. No good will ever come from drinking New world wine, it is all chemical filth.

[Bux]

There are no misapprehensions in the Internet, only poorly worded posts. I was trying to address "culture" in regard to at least both aspects of the word. While wine is more often connected to art culture than is beer, the point I wanted to make is that wine pervades all levels of society in a wine culutre. In beer drinking cultres, wine is often consumed only by the wealthier members, or by those at the extremes.

I seem to recall that this particular Languedoc wine went for about ๖ in a restaurant where there wasn't much under ำ. I don't recall the prices of Bordeaux. The good buys seemed to be in the forties and in the Rhone valley. I saw the same wine this week for around ๖ in another restaurant, but I drank a ห Vacquayras.

We should all drink New World wines perodically, if only to remind us why we don't drink them regularly. Actually, I don't believe that. which is to say that the new world should be encouraged. It keeps the old world on its toes and helps keep the prices down.

Frank Prial says the bargains are in southern Italy--just when I've been trying to learn about Spanish wines. It's a losing battle. An older friend of mine keeps complaining that he no longer recognizes the wines on the shelves of wine shops. Some have been forced off the shelves and others are no longer bottled under their old names or by their old bottlers. The wines from appellations that used to be bottled by negotiants are now estate bottled. Old appellations have been split and new ones made up. It's a young man's world. After a while the grey matter doesn't keep on absorbing the changes.

[Ron Johnson]

Bux: the bargains are everywhere, they just need to be found.  I think that the cabernet francs from the Loire Valley are tremendous values.  I would also agree that many wines from the languedoc are bargains.  Especially those that are using mourvedre and not gimmicky winemaker tricks.

Prial is a heck of a nice guy, but I tend to disagree with him much of the time.  Like when he said that Sancerre was made from the melon de bourgogne grape.

I think  Kermit Lynch's little book does a nice job of explaining why Old World wines are more rewarding than New World, as well as discussing the significance of terroir.

Cheers.

[Bux]

I tend to disagree with him much of the time.  Like when he said that Sancerre was made from the melon de bourgogne grape.

That was utterly strange and incomprehensible. Did I miss a retraction on that or was the Times not inundated with letters to the editor picking that up. If there's anything that refutes NYC's claim to be the restaurant capital of the world, it's the food coverage in the NY Times.

Of course there are bargain wines all over the place and on a daily basis, we drink more cheap French wine than anything else. If nothing else, their faults are more acceptable to me, or at least after traveling in France so much, they've become my kind of faults.

[Stone]

This is begining to remind me of a conversation I had at a bar watching football games during the baseball playoffs.  I, a football fan, commented to the guy next to me that baseball fans seem so terribly obsessed with statistics (not that football doesn't keep an absurd amount).  He said to me, "if you had to justify the amount of time you spent watching grass grow, you'd need something to talk about also."

[Ron Johnson]

dstone:  um, ok.  now am I the baseball or the football?  or are you the football player and wine is a baseball game?  no, wait, I get it, people who drink wine like to play football, right?

[Niall]

While the old world/ new world wine bias may not be completely justified.. the breakdown between old world and new world beer should also be looked at; compare the beers of Belgium and Germany against the beers of the US and Australia...

But as to the cultural impact of wine vs beer; it all depends where you are. Beer has definitely had more of a cultural impaqct where it is more common, and easier to grow; think England, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands etc. Wine has had more of a cultural impact where it can be produced, in France, Spain and Italy.

[Rail Paul]

The Times did put out a correction on the melon de bourgogne the following week.

Years ago, when the New Yorker had fact checkers, there were three or four "immortals" whose work would never be fact checked. I believe McPhee and White were among them. Everybody else was checked. Like flying, today.