I'm a bit late to this controversy, but since the argument seems to be unending, it doesn't matter when I notice it out of the corner of my eye and pick it up. It will still be there guttering along on some wine-focused BBS next week, next month, and next year. This particular controversy is just like Washington, D.C., about which George Schultz said "Nothing ever gets settled in this town."
The sparkle this time was provided by an interview Jancis Robinson did with the St. Helena Star while she was visiting the Northern California wine country for a series of MW seminars. (Jancis Robinson on words, works, and wine gluts). Her insight (or heresy, depending on how you feel about it) was commenting on how critics influence wine. She observed that: "Probably America's two big wine commentators, Parker (Robert M. Parker, Jr.) and the Wine Spectator are doing the dictating." Robinson added, "I happen to think it's a shame that these two have such similar tastes as I honestly don't believe they are shared with the overwhelming majority of wine drinkers, and especially not by most good winemakers. One of the saddest things I hear, and not just in California, is a wine producer admitting that they make wines they don't actually like themselves, but they make them - much bigger than their own taste - because they think they'll get high points."
On the eRobertParker.com wine bulletin board, this was the catalyst for a Jancis public dunking, with Parker disciples maintaing that the market dictated wine styles, not the critics. I'm not so sure about this. Certainly winemakers and winery owners need to sell their wine, and to do so, they must respond to market demands, but in Fine Wine Sales isn't it possible that the critics drive the market? Have you ever seen a "shelf-talker" in a wine shop quoting Parker or the Wine Spectator? Have you ever been in a wine shop that DIDN'T have these "shelf-talkers?"
Certainly the part about wine producers making wine they don't actually like rings true. I was wine touring in Central California this weekend, and had a conversation with a vineyard and winery owner who was resigned to producing only a miniscule amount of wine because he doesn't like the "big" style praised by the wine critics, and he will only make wine he likes. He said he'd be happy to have a core of 200 people that would buy his wine year after year and appreciate it for it's elegance and friendliness to food.
As for what "most wine drinkers" like, I had an eye-opening experience with a group of normal wine drinkers (e.g. not geeks) who had a social tasting group. I put together a group of sub-$20 Central Coast Pinot Noirs which we all tasted blind. As a ringer, I added a bottle of $45 Loring 2002 Garys' Vineyard, which Wine Spectator had rated at 93 points. When the votes were counted, the Loring came in dead last in the group ranking. There were six votes for "dislike", no "indifferents", and four "likes". I voted it first in the flight, but was I really being honest? What did I learn? Hypothesis #1: serious wines need age, and the Loring was much too young to drink. Hypothesis #2: wine critics are driving a style that the average consumer doesn't like. Perhaps Jancis is right, and a bunch of folks on the Parker board are navel-gazers.
Other interesting observations in the story include her puzzlement that some people can find "16 different flavors in a single wine" and her judgement that useful wine criticism is the type that "give[s] people an idea of the style and structure of a wine. Is it light, heavy, crisp, full bodied, tannic, etc., and when it might be at its best to drink, such as between 2008-12."
I certainly agree with this! For me, it is enough to know that a wine exhibits varietal typicality in the nose and on the palate, and is not marred by VA or bret. After that, I'm not really interested in whether it exhibits "notes of wet stones" or "white flowers" or "leather and gamey meats," and to tell the truth, try as I might, I rarely find those things in wine anyway. I want to know about the balance between the alcohol, acid, tannins, and fruit; whether the body is light or full; if there is any residual sugar; and if there is a bitter or sweet finish. Those things tell me about the quality of the wine. I'm not sure what "white flowers" tells me. How about you?
Interesting take. I like your last paragraph. Wine tasting should be about balance. Between fruit, acid and tannins but also between nose palate and finish. Nothing turns me off more than a big nose followed by a thin broth. Salud.